Lawyer Ferdinand Topacio renewed his call to decriminalize libel after Makati prosecutors dismissed the criminal complaint filed against him by actress Jasmine Curtis-Smith, arguing that laws penalizing speech have no place in a democratic society.
“I hope this will be the end to the issue regarding what I believe to be constitutionally-protected free speech,” Topacio said in a statement. “I take this opportunity to reiterate my stand that libel should be decriminalized, as penal laws deterring and punishing free expression have no place in a democratic society,” he added.
Topacio also maintained that his remarks against Curtis-Smith “were nothing personal,” describing them as part of “legitimate political debate.”
The statement came after the Makati City Prosecutor’s Office dismissed Curtis-Smith’s complaint for cyber libel, unjust vexation, and gender-based online sexual harassment against Topacio for lack of prima facie evidence sufficient to support criminal charges.
In a 13-page joint resolution dated July 1, prosecutors said the statements at the center of the complaint were made in connection with public discussions surrounding the impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte. They noted that Topacio’s remarks were a response to comments made by Quezon City 4th District Rep. Jesus “Bong” Suntay during a House of Representatives hearing, placing them within the context of an ongoing public controversy.
Prosecutors ruled that while Topacio’s statements were “highly critical,” they amounted to fair comment on a matter of public interest and were protected under qualified privileged communication rather than constituting defamation.
“This Office finds that the subject statements were made in relation to the remarks made by Cong. Jesus ‘Bong’ Suntay relative to the impeachment hearing of Vice President Sara Duterte,” the resolution stated.
The prosecutors added that criticism made in the course of public discourse is afforded greater protection, particularly when it concerns issues of public interest. They said the evidence presented failed to establish the elements necessary to prosecute Topacio for cyber libel.
The resolution further stated that although the remarks “may have been sharp, insulting, or offensive,” offensiveness alone does not establish actual malice, an essential element of cyber libel. Without proof of actual malice, prosecutors said there was no basis to pursue criminal charges.
The complaint stemmed from remarks Topacio made on his radio program after Curtis-Smith criticized Suntay over comments he made during a House hearing involving her sister, actress Anne Curtis. In defending Suntay, Topacio questioned Curtis-Smith’s social media posts, prompting the actress to file criminal complaints against the lawyer.
Prosecutors, likewise, found insufficient evidence to hold Topacio liable for unjust vexation and gender-based online sexual harassment, saying the records failed to show that his actions were intended or likely to inflict the level of mental, emotional, or psychological harm required under the law.
They also found no competent proof that Topacio’s statements were calculated to terrorize, intimidate, or damage Curtis-Smith’s reputation in a manner punishable under existing statutes, ruling that the evidence fell short of the threshold required for criminal prosecution.
The dismissal prompted Topacio to reiterate his longstanding position that libel should no longer be treated as a criminal offense, saying the case underscored the need to protect constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression while allowing robust public debate on issues of national interest. He said the ruling affirms those principles.
Stay updated—follow Philippines Today on Facebook and Instagram, and subscribe on YouTube for more stories.